Nurse Sheri Juan measures a San Diego hospice patient's arm for edema, which could be a sign his congestive heart failure is worsening, Jan. 12, 2017. (Photo courtesy of Heidi de Marco/Kaiser Health News)
For the first time, Medicare officials have posted online quality scores for some 3,800 hospice providers — including about two dozen in San Diego County.
The scores are on a website launched Wednesday called Hospice Compare. And most San Diego hospices did well on most measures compared with national averages.
Kate Goodrich of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said the new transparency for end-of-life care will provide “a snapshot on the quality of care delivered by each provider” that will “help consumers make informed decisions about important aspects of hospice care.”
Public reporting of data encourages hospice providers to improve their services, Goodrich said.
Visitors can compare up to three hospice facilities at a time, along with national averages for each of the seven measures, and see the data in table or graph format. For profit or not-for-profit status of each hospice is also shown.
The scores rate companies that provide care to patients with six months or less to live on whether their services meet seven measures known to ease the process of dying. The scores reveal the percentage of patients who:
Were checked for pain at the beginning of hospice care.
Received a timely and thorough pain assessment when pain was identified as a problem.
Were checked for shortness of breath at the beginning of hospice care.
Received timely treatment for shortness of breath.
Were taking opioid pain medication and who were offered care for opioid-related constipation.
Were asked about treatment preferences such as hospitalization and resuscitation at the beginning of hospice care.
Were asked about their beliefs and values at the start of hospice care.
The data was collected for hospice care provided between Oct. 1, 2015, to Sept. 30, 2016.
For six of the seven measures, most of the San Diego area hospices scored well above 90 percent, and most were above the national average. However, with two measures, scores for San Diego area providers showed wide variation, a gap that indicates lower scoring hospice companies have room to improve.
For example, on the measure for assessment of pain when it was identified as a problem, 11 area hospices scored under 80 percent. The lowest performing provider in the county was Bridge Hospice, with a 48.3 percent score, although CMS noted that Bridge reported for a shorter time period than required. Bridge was followed by Advantage Health Systems with 50 percent, and Gentiva Hospice with 63.1 percent. Six other hospices in the county scored under the national average of 77.7 percent.
Interactive graphic
Load interactive graphic
For the other lower scoring measure, beliefs and values, four area hospices scored below 80 percent. The lowest scoring facility was Health Essentials LLC with 45.2 percent. It was followed by Seaport Hospice with 61.8 percent and Sonata Healthcare with 72.7 percent. Nine other area hospices were below the national average of 93.6 percent although two did not have enough data for the full year.
San Diego County has 27 hospices listed on the CMS website but not all of them reported their quality data to CMS and some had fewer than the required number of eligible patients to be scored.
Hospices that fail to report their results to CMS receive a 2 percent reduction in their Medicare payment. Many did not report on some or all of the categories, locally and nationally. On the pain assessment measure, for example, data was unavailable for nearly 1,400 hospices.
The new website satisfies a provision of the Affordable Care Act that required information be made public about the quality of end-of-life care. Some hospice experts, however, have criticized its implementation as not showing sufficient variation to be helpful to most viewers.
Many high performing hospices
Relatively few hospices scored lower than 80 percent on any measure, said Dr. Joan Teno, a national hospice quality expert at the University of Washington who questioned what value the website has to influence consumer choice or physician referral.
“So many hospices are scoring so highly on this, it’s not going to provide consumers with actual information,” Teno said Wednesday.
The March Medicare Payment Advisory Commission report called the website’s data “limited,” and said that for all measures except pain assessment, “at least three-quarters of hospices performed the process appropriately more than 91 percent of the time.” For documentation of treatment preferences and shortness of breath screening, scores averaged 98 percent.
Hospice providers have known for several years which measures were being scored, and had a chance earlier this summer to review their data and correct errors.
Some San Diego County hospices scored consistently well. For example, Hospice of the North Coast scored 100 percent in five of the seven measures, and Advantage Health System scored 100 percent in four.
Dr. Karl Steinberg, medical director of Hospice By the Sea in Solana Beach, is on the National Quality Forum standing committee that debates and approves end of life measures for use in health care settings.
Steinberg said he hopes all of the hospices, including his own, will “see how they compare to local and national parameters, and take stock to see what quality improvements they can put in place.” He acknowledged room to improve in pain assessment, treatment for patients who are short of breath and asking patients about their beliefs and values. His hospice scored from 80 percent to 84.8 percent on these measures.
Even so, Steinberg said, “I think you have to take it all with a grain of salt, especially when there’s not a lot of scatter. If one hospice is 94 percent and one is 92 percent, you don’t really know that one hospice is somehow a lot better.”
Goodrich acknowledged during a Wednesday news conference that many of the measures do have fairly high performance scores.
“These are measures that hospices have gained a fair amount of familiarity with,” she said. They’ve been in the program for a little while, so we knew we had — based on our own work with the data — fairly valid and reliable data, which is of course is important for anything that’s going to be publicly reported,” Goodrich said.
Charles Padgett, also of the CMS clinical center, added that the website is particularly helpful if one is looking at a hospice that is at the lower end of quality. “There is differentiation among facilities on the lower end,” he said.
More hospice quality measures on the way
But Goodrich said more measures are needed, and some are in the works to score hospice care in other ways. The agency plans eventually to make public patient and family member responses to a survey that reflects family and patient experiences of care.
That survey asks 10 questions such as how often did the hospice workers keep you informed about when they would arrive to care for your family member? Or, how often did the hospice team explain things in a way that was easy to understand? And, how often did anyone from the hospice give you confusing or contradictory information about your family member’s condition or care.
Other measures were added for hospice to start reporting in April but are at least a year away from being publicly reported.
According to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission report, one of those new measures scores the percentage of patients who received a visit from a registered nurse, physician, nurse practitioner or physician assistant during the last three days of life. Another counts the percentage of patients receiving at least two visits from a social worker, chaplain or spiritual counselor, licensed practice nurse or hospice aide in the last seven days of life.
Those are expected to be rolled out in winter of 2018 on the Hospice Compare website.
Another measure still under consideration would score whether symptoms such as pain are brought under control within 48 hours and whether the patient has a comfortable death in the eyes of the family members and how that should be defined.
“By next winter, we’re going to have a much more complete picture for consumers and payers to use,” said Carol Spence, vice president of research and quality for the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization.
Spence said measuring care for hospice services has been difficult. “It’s come late to the table when it comes to quality reporting,” behind scorecards for hospitals, skilled nursing homes and many other health care settings, she said, and that’s in part because one-third of patients die within seven days of admission to hospice care.
That doesn’t give much time to provide services covered under current measures, Spence said.
While the trend is for more Medicare beneficiaries to choose hospice care at the end of life — it grew from 47.9 percent in 2014 to 48.6 percent in 2015 — average length of stay declined from 88.2 to 86.7 days, with a median of 17 days, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.
Goodrich also said CMS is working on a composite score that will roll several hospice measures together. She hopes that will be more meaningful to patients and “will also further differentiate performance across providers.”
Some hospice providers welcomed the release. Mary Zalaznik, senior vice president of VITAS, a national for-profit company with a hospice in San Diego County, said the data provides insight on how to create quality improvement plans.
“As the site matures, Hospice Compare will include measurements regarding the patient’s reported experience along with quality, outcome-based measurements,” Zalaznik said.
inewsource is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom dedicated to improving lives in the San Diego region and beyond through impactful, data-based investigative and accountability journalism.
Our Vision
Betrayals of the public trust are revealed and rectified, wrongdoing is deterred, and inequities are illuminated thanks to inewsource’s deep, dogged, fact-based reporting.
Our Values
Truth: Above all else, we value the importance of a free and credible press. Truth is the cornerstone of democracy and the core value for inewsource.
Transparency: We build trust with our readers by adhering to the highest standards and ethics, and to reporting with facts, precision and context.
Collaboration: Our newsroom prioritizes collaboration over competition. We regularly partner with media outlets on reporting projects and to share content.
Community: Our reporting serves the San Diego region, and we strive to build relationships with our audience by getting out into the community to listen and engage.
Ethics Policy
inewsource will conduct its business with the highest standards of decency, fairness and accuracy. These standards shall apply equally to inewsource employees, freelancers and all others engaged in gathering information on behalf of inewsource. All receive a copy of these ethical standards.
In the course of our reporting, we will consistently:
● Identify our organization and ourselves fully and avoid false representations of any kind to any source.
● Obtain consent from all parties before electronically recording any interview or conversation except in extraordinary cases authorized by the Managing Editor and Editor. If a source refuses to be taped, that must be honored; no recordings are to be made without consent.
● Respect the individual’s right to privacy. inewsource will never manipulate or barter private, personal, health, financial or other extraneous information in the course of preparing its reports.
● Any source we describe or write about in any significant manner must be contacted. The employee should document all efforts to contact the source, and if unsuccessful, should summarize these efforts at contact in the body of his/her writing.
In addition, inewsource follows the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists. The latest version, revised in 2014, can be found here.
Our organization retains full authority over editorial content to protect the best journalistic and business interests of our organization. We will maintain a firewall between news coverage decisions and sources of all revenue. Acceptance of financial support does not constitute implied or actual endorsement of donors or their products, services or opinions.
We accept gifts, grants and sponsorships from individuals and organizations for the general support of our activities, but our news judgments are made independently and not on the basis of donor support. Our organization also may consider donations to support the coverage of particular topics, but our organization maintains editorial control of the coverage. We will cede no right of review or influence of editorial content, nor of unauthorized distribution of editorial content.
Our organization will make public all donors who give a total of $1,000 or more. We will accept anonymous donations for general support only if it is clear that sufficient safeguards have been put into place that the expenditure of that donation is made independently by our organization and in compliance with INN’s Membership Standards.
Diversity
Diverse Voices
Inclusiveness is at the heart of thinking and acting as journalists, and it supports the educational mandate of inewsource. Race, class, generation, gender, sexual orientation, ability, and geography all affect point of view. inewsource believes that reflecting societal differences in reporting leads to better, more nuanced stories and a better-informed community.
inewsource is committed to employment equity and diversity.
Diverse Staffing Report
Below is a breakdown of staffing data at inewsource. We determine the composition of our staff by asking them to self-identify. It is based on a newsroom of 11 and a total staff of 15 as of August 2020. Percentages are based on 15 total survey responses. The numbers include full-time and part-time staff, full-time fellows and full-time and part-time interns.
All Staff Percentages are based on 15 total survey responses. The numbers include full-time and part-time staff, full-time fellows and full-time and part-time interns.
Newsroom Percentages are based on 15 completed survey responses to this question.
Business Percentages are based on 15 completed survey responses to this question.
Gender Identity
Gender Identity
Gender Identity
Women
80%
Women
82%
Women
75%
Men
20%
Men
18%
Men
25%
Sexual Orientation
Sexual Orientation
Sexual Orientation
Straight
87%
Straight
82%
Straight
100%
LGBTQ-identifying
7%
LGBTQ-identifying
7%
Not specified
7%
Not specified
7%
Speak a language beyond English at home
33%
Speak a language beyond English at home
18%
Speak a language beyond English at home
75%
Race/Ethnicity
Race/Ethnicity
Race/Ethnicity
White
67%
White
73%
White
50%
Hispanic or Latinx
20%
Two or more races
18%
Hispanic or Latinx
50%
Two or more races
13%
Hispanic or Latinx
9%
Age
Age
Age
20-29
40%
20-29
45%
20-29
25%
30-39
47%
30-39
45%
30-39
50%
60 or older
13%
60 or older
9%
60 or older
25%
* The percentages in the charts have been rounded and may not add up to 100.
Ownership Structure, Funding and Grants
inewsource is a nonprofit organization, whose legal name is Investigative Newsource. It does business as inewsource. The business was incorporated on Aug. 4, 2009 in the state of California. Tax-exempt status as a 501c3 was granted by the IRS on Sept. 15, 2010. inewsource is funded primarily by individual contributions and foundation grants. We are guided by a board of directors.
Editorial independence: Journalists employed by inewsource take no editorial direction from donors whose contributions may support the organization. inewsource will not hesitate to report on its donors when events warrant. Our Editorial Independence Policy details the firewall between journalism and revenue.
To be transparent with the public, inewsourcelists its donors on its website. In cases where a donor is the subject of an inewsource story, additional disclosure will be made.
Financial Documents
We do our due diligence to earn your trust in our reporting, as well as in our governance and financial sustainability. All of our financial documents are made available to view so that our supporters can trust we are sound stewards of your philanthropy. Review our IRS Form 990s, audited financial statements and annual reports:
Transparency is one of our core values. Today, there is a need to build trust with our audience because new media and ways of communicating spread lies and slanted news faster than “real” news. At the same time, this era of new technologies makes it easier than ever for news organizations to be transparent. People don’t just have to believe us, they can investigate our investigations with our source materials.
Transparency is key to building credibility.
inewsource reporters have primary responsibility for reporting, writing, and fact-checking their stories. But before a story is published, the reporter reviews all facts and sources with an editor or another reporter. Facts must be traced to a primary source.
In addition, we “transparify” certain investigative stories. This process involves publishing a version of the web story with hyperlinks to all the story’s facts. This is proof that all facts have been documented with primary evidence. We do this to build trust with our readers and to be as transparent as we hope the public figures and institutions that we hold accountable will be.
Unnamed Sources
Not all sources are created equal. Some sources cannot speak authoritatively, provide proper analysis or speak specifically to every inquiry placed before them. To maintain the integrity of our reporting, inewsource reporters must select sources who can speak with validity to the topic at hand, and avoid presenting unqualified or underqualified sources as experts.
If an interviewed source has a conflict of interest, or whose qualifications may be tangential or limited, reporters will note that within the context of the story.
It is incumbent upon reporters to fully background their sources to uncover conflicts of interest or slant prior to using them in a story.
Unless discussed prior to an interview, all subjects talking to inewsource journalists are on the record. Specifically, the source is identified by name and title, and their exact or paraphrased words are attributed to them for publication. If journalists speak with sources who are not politicians, public figures or those not commonly interviewed by journalists, staff should explain clearly that information discussed will be on the record and for publication.
There are times, however, when information may be critical for a story but cannot be found or verified by other means. For example, a source may be able to confirm specific information about a series of events they may have witnessed, but have legitimate concerns about using their name or title. The repercussions to the source could be legal, job-related retribution or personal safety. The source and journalist must discuss these potential dangers and terms of use should be agreed upon by both parties.
If inewsource publishes information from an anonymous source, inewsource will explain to readers, in as much detail as possible, why we agreed to anonymity.
Corrections and Clarifications
inewsource strives for accuracy in everything we do, which is why we are committed to fact checking our content. But sometimes we make errors. When that happens, we correct them. We also clarify stories when something we’ve written is confusing or could be misinterpreted.
We endeavor to always be transparent about our commitment to correcting errors and clarifying misperceptions. When staffers see, hear or read about a possible issue with the accuracy of any inewsource content, they are expected to bring it to the attention of an editor and the web producer so it can be evaluated to determine how to proceed.
Including the web producer is key because inewsource is a multimedia news organization and shares its content with multiple partners on multiple platforms. The web producer must alert these partners about corrections and clarifications.
Corrections and clarifications should be included at the bottom of stories and dated.
Actionable Feedback and Newsroom Contacts
Our audiences know the region we cover and have a stake in maintaining and improving the quality of life in San Diego and Imperial counties. We know your knowledge and insights can help shape what we cover and how we cover it. We invite your comments and complaints on news stories, suggestions for issues to cover or sources to consult. We rely on you to tell us when we get it right and when we need to keep pushing.
Your comments, questions and suggestions can be sent to the team as a whole at contact@inewsource.org or you can contact a specific member of our staff.
Lorie Hearn is the chief executive officer, editor and founder of inewsource. She founded inewsource in the summer of 2009, following a successful reporting and editing career in newspapers. She retired from The San Diego Union-Tribune, where she had been a reporter, Metro Editor and finally the senior editor for Metro and Watchdog Journalism. In addition to department oversight, Hearn personally managed a four-person watchdog team, composed of two data specialists and two investigative reporters. Hearn was a Nieman Foundation fellow at Harvard University in 1994-95. She focused on juvenile justice and drug control policy, a natural course to follow her years as a courts and legal affairs reporter at the San Diego Union and then the Union-Tribune.
Hearn became Metro Editor in 1999 and oversaw regional and city news coverage, which included the city of San Diego’s financial debacle and near bankruptcy. Reporters and editors on Metro during her tenure were part of the Pulitzer Prize-winning stories that exposed Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham and led to his imprisonment.
Hearn began her journalism career as a reporter for the Bucks County Courier Times, a small daily outside of Philadelphia, shortly after graduating from the University of Delaware. During the decades following, she moved through countless beats at five newspapers on both coasts.
High-profile coverage included the historic state Supreme Court election in 1986, when three sitting justices were ousted from the bench, and the 1992 execution of Robert Alton Harris. That gas chamber execution was the first time the death penalty was carried out in California in 25 years.
In her nine years as Metro Editor at the Union-Tribune, Hearn made watchdog reporting a priority. Her reporters produced award-winning investigations covering large and small local governments. The depth and breadth of their public service work was most evident in coverage of the wildfires of 2003 and then 2007, when more than half a million people were evacuated from their homes.
Laura Wingard is the managing editor at inewsource. She has been an editor in San Diego since 2002, working at The San Diego Union-Tribune, KPBS and now inewsource. At the Union-Tribune, she served in a variety of roles including as enterprise editor, government editor, public safety and legal affairs editor, and metro editor. She directed the newspaper’s award-winning coverage of the October 2007 wildfires and the 2010 disappearance of Poway teenager Chelsea King. She also oversaw reporting on San Diego’s pension crisis.
For two years, Wingard was news and digital editor at KPBS, overseeing a team of four multimedia reporters and two web producers. She also was the KPBS liaison with inewsource and collaborated with inewsource chief executive officer and editor Lorie Hearn on investigative work by both news organizations.
Wingard also worked at the Las Vegas Review-Journal as the city editor and as an award-winning reporter covering the environment and politics. She also was the assistant managing editor for metro at The Press-Enterprise in Riverside. She earned her bachelor’s degree at California State University, Fullerton, with a double major in communications/journalism and political science.
Brad Racino is the assistant editor and a senior reporter at inewsource. He has produced investigations for print, radio and TV on topics including political corruption, transportation, health, maritime, education and nonprofits.
His cross-platform reporting for inewsource has earned more than 50 awards since 2012, including back-to-back national medals from Investigative Reporters and Editors, two national Edward R. Murrow awards, a Meyer “Mike” Berger award from New York City’s Columbia Journalism School, the Sol Price Award for Responsible Journalism, San Diego SPJ’s First Amendment Award, and a national Emmy nomination.
In 2017, Racino was selected by the Institute for Nonprofit News as one of 10 “Emerging Leaders” in U.S. nonprofit journalism.
Racino has worked as a reporter and database analyst for News21; as a photographer, videographer and reporter for the Columbia Missourian; as a project coordinator for the National Freedom of Information Coalition and as a videographer and editor for Verizon Fios1 TV in New York. He received his master’s degree in journalism from the University of Missouri in 2012.
Byline Policy
Most of our articles carry a byline to identify the author. In some cases, inewsource will use a brand byline such as “Staff” or “inewsource” for internal or editorial information about the newsroom. In these instances, inewsource‘s Editor and Managing Editor are responsible for content that uses a brand byline.
The Trust Project
inewsource is proud to be a member of The Trust Project and support efforts to increase transparency in journalism by displaying the 8 Trust Indicators on our stories. We launched the Trust Indicators on Sep. 16, 2020.
Privacy Policy
inewsource has prepared this Privacy Policy to explain how we collect, use, protect, and share information when you use our inewsource.org website (the “Site“) or when you use any of our services (the “Services“).
By using the Site or Services you consent to this Privacy Policy.
Log Data
Like many site operators, we collect information that your browser sends whenever you visit our site (“Log Data”).
This Log Data may include information such as your computer’s Internet Protocol (“IP”) address, browser type, browser version, the pages of our site that you visit, the time and date of your visit, the time spent on those pages and other statistics.
Cookies
Cookies are files with small amount of data, which may include an anonymous unique identifier. Cookies are sent to your browser from a web site and stored on your computer or mobile device.
Like many sites, we use “cookies” to collect information. You can instruct your browser to refuse all cookies or to indicate when a cookie is being sent. However, if you do not accept cookies, you may not be able to use some portions of our site.
Certain pages on our site may set other third party cookies. For example, we may embed content, such as videos, from another site that sets a cookie. While we try to minimize these third party cookies, we can’t always control what cookies this third party content sets.
Additionally, we may use third party services — such as those that provide social media conveniences, measure traffic, send newsletters and facilitate donations — that may place cookies on your computer. We don’t have any way of knowing how such services handle the resulting data internally. inewsource makes no claim, nor takes liability for the insecure submission of information via these applications.
Here are the services whose cookies you can find on inewsource.org:
Sharing buttons for Facebook and Twitter. These use the standard scripts provided by each company.
Google Analytics, which we use to measure site traffic. Google Analytics gathers certain non-personally identifying information over time, such as your IP address, browser type, internet service provider, referring and exit pages, time stamp, and similar data. We also use Facebook Pixel to measure, optimize and build audiences for advertising campaigns served on Facebook. In particular it enables us to see how our users move between devices when accessing our website and Facebook, to ensure that our Facebook advertising is seen by our users most likely to be interested in such advertising by analyzing which content a user has viewed and interacted with on our website.
Stripe, which allows us to accept donations through our website.
Salesforce to manage newsletter subscriber, donor, and other identifiable user data.
Mailchimp, to manage newsletter distributions. We collect your email address if you choose to subscribe to one of our email newsletters or email news alerts. Other optional information that you enter when subscribing – such as your first and last names or city are simply so that we can deliver more personalized email newsletters. We DO NOT sell, rent or market your information to any other parties. We retain your information only as long as necessary to provide your service. When we send emails, it collects some data about which users open the emails and which links are clicked. We use this information to optimize our email newsletters and, as aggregate information, to explain what percentage of our users open and interact with our newsletters.
Personal Data
We only collect personally identifiable information such as your name and email address when you sign up for a newsletter, donate to our organization, or otherwise submit it to us voluntarily. We do not share your personal data with any third parties other than some common service providers, whose products use your information to help us improve our site, deliver newsletters, or allow us to offer donation opportunities.
inewsource limits access to all user data for the purposes of newsletter, fundraising, and customer service only. User data is not sold to or otherwise shared with anyone not working with or for the inewsource.
You may unsubscribe or opt-out of our email and mail communications at any time by hitting the “unsubscribe” button in any email you receive from inewsource, or by emailing us at contact@inewsource.org or calling us at 619-594-5100.
Donor Information
The identities of all donors will be listed on our website. inewsource does not share, trade, sell, or otherwise release donors’ personal information to any third parties.
Refunds
If you encounter errors when donating on the website, please contact us at members@inewsource.org. For example, if you submit a donation for an incorrect amount or make a duplicate transaction please email us immediately so we can reverse the charges.
Cancellation of Recurring Donations
You can cancel your monthly recurring donations free of charge by notifying us at members@inewsource.org.
Links to Other Websites
Our site may contain links to documents, resources or other websites that we think may be of interest to you. We have no control over these other sites or their content. You should be aware when you leave our site for another, and remember that other sites are governed by their own user agreements and privacy policies, which should be available to you to read.
Disclaimers and Limitation of Liability
Although we take reasonable steps to prevent the introduction of viruses, worms, “Trojan Horses” or other destructive materials to our site, we do not guarantee or warrant that our site or materials that may be downloaded from our site are free from such destructive features. We are not liable for any damages or harm attributable to such features. We are not liable for any claim, loss or injust based on errors, omissions, interruptions or other inaccuracies on our site, nor for any claim, loss or injust that results from your use of this site or your breach of any provision of this User Agreement.
Contact Us
If there are any questions regarding this privacy policy, please contact us at contact@inewsource.org or call us at 619-594-5100.
Cheryl Clark is a contributing healthcare reporter at inewsource. To contact her with questions, tips or corrections, email clarkcheryl@inewsource.org.
More by Cheryl Clark